| Revision as of 16:48, 8 August 2009 editKeithbob (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers47,111 edits →Request to Cease Personal Attacks: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:11, 7 February 2022 edit undoSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,597 editsm Signing comment by SpiralSource - "requested reassessment for article "holographic will"" | ||
| (384 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{SA-novice}} | |||
| ==Welcome to Misplaced Pages== | |||
| {{#ifeq: {{lc:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}} | {{uc:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}} | |||
| | '''Welcome''' | |||
| Hello, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]{{#if:|, such as the one you made in ]|}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see: | |||
| ==Indef block== | |||
| * ] | |||
| You have been blocked indefinitely per the consensus forming here Best. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| == Talk page access blocked == | |||
| You are welcome to continue editing articles without ], but you may wish to '''<span class="plainlinks"></span>'''. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several ]. If you edit without a username, your ] ({{BASEPAGENAME}}) is used to identify you instead. | |||
| Due to block evasion at {{IP|75.7.198.193}} and continuing a pattern of personal attacks. Please use ] if you want to appeal your block. ] / ] / ] / ] 03:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:{{#if:|{{{1}}}}}|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question and then place <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> before the question on this page. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:welcome-anon --> | |||
| | '''Welcome!''' | |||
| There are actually two routes for appealing your block. Personal attacks and block evasions won't get you very far. Your first place would be the ]. Should they decline your request, you can use BASC as per Dennis Brown's comments above. Regards, ] (] - ]) 16:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]{{#if:|, especially what you did for ]|}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:{{#if:|{{{1}}}}}|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> | |||
| }}—]] 21:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Clarification motion == | ||
| A case (]) in which you were involved has been modified by {{oldid2|631252824|Motion|motion}} which changed the wording of the ] to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --]] 20:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Fladrif, please be careful about accusations of vandalism. See ]. ] (]) 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Warnborough ie logo.gif== | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 18:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==Blocked== | |||
| You have been blocked per ] on the ] page. ] <small>]</small> 16:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Article assessment: "Holographic Will" == | |||
| ::You can't be serious.] (]) 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, I hope you are well. I would like you to please consider re-assessing this article: ]. It is currently listed as start class, although, in my opinion, it is very well put together. I am not involved in the Law community here, so I would like your perspective on this. As far as I can surmise, it's a thoroughly detailed article, breaking down the law for a significant number of countries, with more than adequate sourcing, and provides an excellent lead. To my lay impression, this strikes me as a B class article, but at the very least, it's definitely more than a start at this point. Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{tlx|unblock|I'm sorry and it will never happen again I thought simply asked the question about who ] was, given the user's self-identification as a representative of the school. But, I see that could be interpreted as crossing the line. Sorry. It won't happen again. I think that I have otherwise been a highly responsible contributor who's added a lot of valuable content and documentation on a variety of topics. }} ] (]) 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This is being discussed with the blocking admin. Standby. - ] ] 18:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {| width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;" | |||
| |- | |||
| | valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" | ] | |||
| | style="padding: 0.1em" | | |||
| '''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s): | |||
| <br><br>Per discussion with the blocking admin and your assurances that you will not speculate or comment on the likely identities of other Misplaced Pages editors. Doing so will result in an immediate indef block. | |||
| ''Request handled by:'' - ] ] 19:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Request accepted (after-block request) --> | |||
| |} | |||
| :::Thank you so much. ] (]) 19:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Warnborough == | |||
| I just wanted to thank you again for the recent rewriting and reorganization. It really improved it. I feel pleased every time I look at it. I actually feel like the article is close to being done. There are about 4 small things that I may eventually suggest be changed, but overall it really seems to be shaping up. ] (]) 18:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for the kind words, and for your own input and perspective on the article. ] (]) 19:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Malnak == | |||
| Thanks for correcting Adams. I mostly agree with you, but the context in which he mentions it would necessitate looking at the other decision to see why he's contrasting it in order to understand his point there. And thanks for correcting my point about the footnote. Don't know how I made the mistake. I think you're pretty weak on characterizing a point as "uncontested" that the document itself contradicts. And it was wrong to delete the attribution to Markovsky. I think we've both reached the ] limit. If you revert again you could be blocked. Gotta run. ] (]) 22:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==NPA== | |||
| It is a blatant ] on another editor. You will restrict your comments to the editorial content of the article and make no further comments about other contributors per ] and ] or you '''will''' be ] ] <small>]</small> 16:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :] You have been previously cautioned by another administrator about making uncivil comments directed to other users. It appears from made yesterday that your personal attacks have continued, nonetheless. Please do not make it necessary for me to block you to prevent further disruptive activity. The talk pages are ''only'' for discussing article content, not attacking or impugning other editors. This is your <u>final warning</u>. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == GFDL == | |||
| When copying text from one article to another, you must include in the edit summary where you found the text. This is necessary to comply with the ], under which Misplaced Pages is released. Please make a dummy edit now to include attribution. Thank you, - ] <small>(])</small> 01:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Mediation availability on TM article == | |||
| I will be applying for formal mediation shortly. Please let me know within the next two days if you will be available for mediation or not. This does not mean you accept the mediation, but just that I can include your name as party to the mediation. Thanks. (] (]) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| ...for taking on the job of changing Maharishi to "the" Maharishi. Its a tedious task and I'm glad you're doing it and not me :o).(] (]) 18:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| == Name == | |||
| Just curious -- does your name come from the Lord of the Rings (Fladrif the Ent)? ] (]) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Ottawa Street Power Station == | |||
| Thanks very much for helping with the ] article. I didn't know how you came into that article until i just saw your comment of congratulations to a new RfA, so now i figure you saw mention of it at my own Talk page. (Also, I don't think i want to be considered a barbarian, but no offense taken.) Anyhow, thanks for simply doing a good job with the Ottawa Street Power Station article, settling the situation there well, I think, knock on wood. ] (]) 15:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks from me, too, in resolving stuff at this article. Hmmm...my niece wore a really cute barbarian outfit last Halloween...lots of pink furry stuff...I believe I'll embrace barbarianism. ] (]) 16:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Possibly unfree File:Leopold Bros..gif == | |||
| A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the ]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at ] if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Idw-pui --> --] (]) 19:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == File:Leopold Bros..gif listed for deletion == | |||
| An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Idw --> ] (]) 18:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I would remove another editor's comments on the talk page if they were unconstructive. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, not take part in some weird bureaucratic experiment in democracy. In what way could this possibly be viewed as an out of procedure nomination? I believe the image should be deleted, so I nominate it at IfD? I previously nominated it at PUI, where it was kept, rightly, due to the fact I pressed the wrong button. IfD is the correct venue in this case, and ranting about procedure in a discussion about a specific image is not appropriate. As such, I will remove the comments again. If you have valid points, raise them on my talk page. If you want to rant, get a blog. ] (]) 18:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I suggest you read ] generally, the IFD guidelines, the ], and so on and so forth. That discussion is to determine whether an image should be deleted. I believe the image should be deleted- you may believe otherwise, you're welcome to present your argument. The IP poster is interested only in ranting about some imaginary process that I'm clearly not violating- if they want to do that, they can leave messages on my talk page where they can be replied to, ignored, deleted or acted upon as appropriate. Cluttering a deletion discussion is not acceptable. ] (]) 18:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Right, if you're holding that kind of position, it's clear that we needn't discuss that issue any further. I'll leave the comments there, but don't expect anyone to take any notice of them. Care to explain to me why you believe this nomination is out of process? ] (]) 19:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I admit, I considered the use of pseudo-speedy deletion, but I felt (rightly) that the deletion may be contested, meaning that a discussion was warranted. (I meant to send it to IfD rather than PUI in the first place.) Now that it is there, why not have the discussion there? Why go through the process of me tagging the image as replaceable, you claiming it is not, and sending it to IfD so that a consensus can be reached? ] (]) 19:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit Reverts == | |||
| Hi Fladrif, just a friendly reminder to be careful with your edit reverts. There are some limitations and consequences. For more information please see ]. Peace! --] (]) 17:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sockpuppets== | |||
| Thanks for the comment. I was using a computer that belonged to another person that is also a Wiki editor and that person was logged in when I did my edit - hence the error message. ] (]) 16:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.) Your comments about my dispute resolution skills meant a lot to me and I was glad that you offered them. I am honored that you consider me "thoughtful" and "a strong addition to the admin ranks," and hope I can continue to serve the community well in my new role. If you ever need any administrator assistance, please don't hesitate to ask, as I will be glad to help. | |||
| Thanks again, ] (]) 05:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==TM Article Discussion== | |||
| Hi Fladrif. I really enjoy participating with you and the other editors in the cut-and-thrust debate on the TM article in the talk pages. However, I would prefer if you comments, while containing good points of criticism, do not include name-calling and abuse. Many thank. See you on the TM Discussion pages. --] (]) 16:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == More on personal attacks == | |||
| Fladrif, please remember it is very bad Wiki form to refer to editors in a derogatory or personal way. Sentences like "kool-aid drinking pro-TM true believer" simply have no place in Misplaced Pages. All editors are just that: editors, and should be referred to in no other way. If this is in any way unclear, please refer to ], which, at the very beginning of the page states "Comment on content, not on the contributor." --] (]) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Your comment regarding the 7th == | |||
| So funny, I laughed a nice cup of tea all over my laptop. It is good to at least see one intellect on certain wiki pages :-) ] (]) 19:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| "I even thought I detected some uulating, thought I can't be entirely sure about that" | |||
| Alas, another day, another keyboard. Shocking dear girl/boy; quiet shocking :-) ] (]) 18:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == re Eugene Register-Guard == | |||
| Hi Fladrif, sort of got lost in a flurry of edits this morning, so wanted to point it out in case you missed it. I enjoy working with you, ] (]) 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, thanks, I guess I'd never come across a web page before that you have to drag around to see all of it instead of scrolling to see it, I apologize for my ignorance; it still doesn't seem a very efficient way to read an article, since every time I'd drag a bit to see some more of it, then the page had to reload, a very tedious way to read an article. But having read it, I'm still of the opinion that it's not a very good source for the statement that's cited to it. The only straightforward statement about quality of research in the article comes from the NY Times, (if you wanted to cite that statement, why not cite the NY Times directly?) and quotes Otis, who isn't exactly one to talk about quality of research. So, thanks for giving me the hint I needed to be able to read the article, but I still don't think it's the best source for the assertion. ] (]) 21:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Ospina Bond meta-analysis == | |||
| Hi again. I've been reading more carefully through the TM talk page; I had missed some of the discussion and now am all caught up. I see you've been ahead of me all the way; I was trying to make the point today that the research section should be no more than a few sentences, and I see that earlier, you had even suggested a quite adequate mockup of what that paragraph might look like. And I also see that you've been way ahead of me in arguing for significant inclusion of the findings of the Ospina metastudy. I saw a reference back to a previous discussion about that study, so I went back and read that too. That discussion was painful and frustrating to read; the arguments were so inane and off the point and so obviously grasping at straws it was really annoying. I said in a post on the talk page today that I've been watching the article for 18 months, but I realize now that's not quite true; I got weary of the futility of watching something that it didn't seem as if I could do anything about, and took it off my watchlist for several months, so I missed that discussion. Had I been watching, I would have participated then, although you said everything I would have said. Thanks for paying attention to my comments and taking them into account. ] (]) 05:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah, Bleep, that was some experience; that's where I met these guys. The odd thing is that I think if TG had actually thought about it, or if he really understood how bad the Maharishi Effect research is, he wouldn't have meant to lure a statistician to the Maharishi articles. But I never would have had my curiosity piqued if he hadn't come to my talk page from Bleep to tell me that I should look at a MUM-generated "rebuttal" to Park's comments about the Maharishi Effect, after I said on the Bleep talk page (based on my own look at the data) that the ME, which is mentioned favorably in Bleep, was refuted by its own data; there's just nothing in those crime data to justify that claim. I don't know if you've looked at that Rainsforth rebuttal (if not I think the link is still on my talk page where TG left it more than a year ago); it's a terrible rebuttal, not really a rebuttal at all (it doesn't address the substance of the criticism, but is a lot of smoke and mirrors and posturing) but after reading it I went on to read Park, for which I should probably thank TG. I'd never heard of Park before (Voodoo Science), but it's a very good book, sensible and scientific and right on about several different fringe "science" topics while being eminently readable and entertaining at the same time. And then I read the original ME "study" which just about took my breath away (not in a good way).] (]) 23:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Just a quick comment on Fladrif's assertion that "ME research is utterly incompetent wishful thinking", here is what Bruce Russet, editor of the Journal of Conflict Resolution had to say about a ME study published in his journal: "... the hypothesis seems logically derived from the initial premises, and its empirical testing seems competently executed. These are the standards to which manuscripts submitted for publication in this journal are normally subjected. The manuscript, either in its initial version or as revised was read by four referees (to more than is typical with this journal): three psychologists and a political scientist." (Bruce Russet, editor, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32 (4), p. 773, 1988). --BwB (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Don't be so sure it's not already in there somewhere; the ME made Clinton's approval rating go up, after all. I notice you don't have email enabled; I'm curious whether that's a privacy concern or if you just prefer not to communicate off-wiki. ] (]) 04:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Request to Cease Personal Attacks == | |||
| Another request to please participate in a civil manner on the talk page and to speak to all editors in a civil and respectful way. If you would like some specific examples of your most recent inappropriate comments, please check your talk page contributions on the TM talk page for August 6th. Thank you.--] (]) 16:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:11, 7 February 2022
Indef block
You have been blocked indefinitely per the consensus forming here Best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk page access blocked
Due to block evasion at 75.7.198.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and continuing a pattern of personal attacks. Please use WP:BASC if you want to appeal your block. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 03:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
There are actually two routes for appealing your block. Personal attacks and block evasions won't get you very far. Your first place would be the unblock ticket request system. Should they decline your request, you can use BASC as per Dennis Brown's comments above. Regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Clarification motion
A case (Transcendental Meditation movement) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Warnborough ie logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Warnborough ie logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Article assessment: "Holographic Will"
Hello, I hope you are well. I would like you to please consider re-assessing this article: . It is currently listed as start class, although, in my opinion, it is very well put together. I am not involved in the Law community here, so I would like your perspective on this. As far as I can surmise, it's a thoroughly detailed article, breaking down the law for a significant number of countries, with more than adequate sourcing, and provides an excellent lead. To my lay impression, this strikes me as a B class article, but at the very least, it's definitely more than a start at this point. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiralSource (talk • contribs) 09:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)